Time to change the definition of "coin rotation"

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 11:12:59 GMT, Colin Kynoch
wrote:


So you are basing your argument on the premise that this is the way they
are so this is the way they should be. Great foresight you don't have.

Colin Kynoch


It's not about foresight, Colin. It's about changing a system that is
working well enough to be left alone. You still haven't given me a reason
why differing sizes of notes are better for me, personally, or more
efficient to manufacture and circulate. I agree that plastic notes built
to work with existing equipment would be fine, but that has nothing to do
with the sizes of the notes.

What is it, specifically, that makes more sizes more efficient than one
size? Don't give me any reasons based upon your that's-how-we-do-it
mantra, or the you're-just-stupid-Americans theme. Give us hard cold
figures about how it would be more cost effective to have more sizes of
notes, taking into account that our entire cash handling infrastructure
should have to be retrofitted to accommodate it.

You don't, and can't know, how much this would cost the private business
people in the US. Every dollar they spend on the changeover is a dollar
they can't spend on some other item, like wages, maintenance, health care,
or taxes without directing the cost back to -- ME. Sure, have the
government pay for it -- the cost still comes back to ME.

You don't know how much it would cost to remachine the printing, secondary,
and distributive processes in the government sector, and cannot show how
your system of multiple sized notes would cost less based solely on their
sizes. If size is such an important aspect to efficient note production and
distribution, then having different sizes of paper notes must be more cost
effective than having one size of paper note, right?

BLReed

To email me click he http://tinyurl.com/nd66
For collector coins and supplies at fair prices: http://tinyurl.com/pt9r
Cool things: http://www.byronreed.com/byrons_collections/default.htm
Talk bust coins: http://www.byronreed.com/phpBB2/index.php

You talk a lot of sense Colin but I fear you are wasting your time as
Americans seem to be very resistant to change no matter how beneficial
the change would be.

i.e. Dump the one cent coin and one dollar note, I rest my case. Billy


Colin Kynoch wrote:

Byron L. Reed wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:09:04 GMT, Colin Kynoch
wrote:



Byron L. Reed wrote:


On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:56:49 GMT, Colin Kynoch
wrote:



So tell me Byron the US economy must have been devastated when you
changed from your larger note sizes to you current play money.


You don't understand my point. The US has immense quantities of notes in
circulation -- all the same size. Because of this there is a great deal of
mechanization to process it geared to that particular size note for
production, distribution, circulation, and recovery.

Currently the production equipment can be used for every denomination of
note because the size is standard. Having 6 different sizes of currency
would require that many different web sizes, plate layouts, numbering
machines, cutting machines, bundling machines, and pallet patterns. In
addition, the amount of human capital invested would be extreme to monitor
the 6 different processes from a QA standpoint.


And these costs would be recouped extremely quickly if the US made
changes to polymer notes.


When did I argue against plastic notes per se?

I was offering an efficient and technologically advanced solution that
negates your arguements against changing the sizes of the notes.


Due to the considerably longer lifespan of polymer notes, and the many
other benefits of using notes that aren't affected by the extremes of
weather and hard use.


I agree, but why must they be different sizes?

It makes it far easier for sight impaired people to differentiate
between the notes.

Most other ways of differentiating the notes are degraded by use.

Once in circulation, the notes are accepted by many thousands of vending
machines that are built around a standard-sized note. It would be
impractical to expect businesses to retrofit this equipment.


Tell me these vending machines, was there any changes needed when they
introduced the SBA dollar?

Only for those vending companies who chose to invest in them. When these
companies realized that the SBA wouldn't circulate in their markets they
quickly abandoned retrofitting.

And I suppose they continue to make machines that can't be changed to
accept dollar coins or do they actually make them so that they can use
dollar coins, but they just don't have them set up that way generally?


This also assumes that the machines haven't already been made with
different size notes in mind. I have been interested to see that we
have some US manufactured vending machines here in Australia and
remarkably they manage 5 different size notes without any problem.

I admit that the technology exists, but that doesn't mean that it's
practical.

Seems to work throughout Europe and Asia and Australia without any problems.

It is actually easier for machines to differentiate between notes of
different sizes than it is to differentiate between notes of the same size.

When you tell me that all current note-enabled US vending
machines can accept different sized notes without a retrofit, then I'll
cede this ONE point of the argument.

So you think that the manufacturers only make machines to suit one market?

What if the figure was 80% of all machines?

This same
problem extends to mundane, yet pervasive, situation like the millions of
cash register drawers that would need replacement, the storage trays used
at the banks, even the scheme of the vaults designed specifically for this
sized note.


In Australia the cash register draws are all the same size too. Yet
amazingly they manage to be able to accomodate different size notes.

Are all the drawers the same size?

Yep.

Unless you are talking antique machines I have only seen drawes of the
same size.

Are they all the same size as those
here in the US?

Considering large numbers of them are made in the US, I think it is
reasonable to assume that they are.

Do Australian cashiers have the same money-handling habits
are US cashiers?

No Australian cashiers can actually make proper change.

Yours are assumptions without bases.

Wrong.


On the individual level, how many billions of dollars worth of
mens' wallets would need to be replaced to accommodate larger bills?


Now you are being ridiulous.

Am I?

Yep. There would be no need to change wallets.



100 Million adult american men multiplied by $20 = 2 BILLION DOLLARS

That doesn't even account for women's pocketbooks which I assume would be
vastly more expensive 100 million X $20 X 3 levels of dress X 4 seasons
worth of purses X 6 basic color and design schemes = 144 BILLION DOLLARS
(NOW I'm being "ridiulous")

Yes. You are making the assumption that these wallets and pocket books
would need to be changed, that is the ridiculous assumption.


I understand that many Americans travel and the US is somewhat of an
anachronism in its persistence with all denoms being the same size, are
you suggesting that all Americans who travel are forced to buy new
wallets when the go overseas?

This particular argument is laughable.

Forced, no? Travel is by definition a temporary situation and "many" is a
long way from being "sufficient."

I have just measure my wallet and it would accomodate American notes
quite comfortably, and the stunning thing is that it also accomodates
all FIVE different sizes of Australian note as well.

But hey if you think that Americans are so stupid that they would need
to change their wallets and pocketbooks if there were different note
sizes, that is your perogative.

When the Federal Reserved collects the notes it processes them trough a
series of machines that examine the bills for re useability and
authenticity. These range from a simple matter of sensing damage to the
note, to detecting the precise magnetic fields present in a genuine note's
ink. These machines would have to exist separately for each denomination of
note. Moreover, the current machines and systems would have to be
maintained for years in order to handle the billions of US notes that would
dribble in over time.

If the US decided to change to polymer currency (and the Federal Reserve
has had talks with NPA), the costs of change would be recouped quite
quickly.

There you go again with the plastic notes. I don't give a rip (or even a
no-rip) about the plastic notes. Please keep your arguing partners
straight.

If America was sensible enough to change to different note sizes for
different denominations then maybe they would be sensible enough to
change to a more secure mode of manufacture of their notes.

In another response in this thread you said "Technology can solve all
types of problems is you're willing to invest a little effort in finding
an efficient solution rather than one that suits your personal tastes.",
I am offering a more efficient and technologically advanced option than
your nineteenth century technology, and inefficient currency.

I assume that you must also be keen for all the coins in the US to be
the same size, weight, metal for all denominations.

If not then why argue for the same size denominations in your notes.

There are still 'paper' notes being turned in to banks in
Australia (I know because if I see them in a tellers draw I ask for them
and get them), this causes no great problems and when they only
'dribble' in there would be little need to maintain the machinery to
check for reusability, as they would be muted anyway. As for
authenticity the banks that received them would surely be checking for that.



The US was far from being devastated when the US changed to its current
size of note.


So are unliekly to be if any other changes are made.

I don't know that I claimed that we would be devastated. That was your
word, not mine. All I claimed was that the cost of having differing sizes
notes would outweigh your perceived trivial benefits and sated
sensibilities.

Assuming you continued with old technology like 'paper' notes.

If you on the other hand "invest a little effort in finding an
efficient solution", you will realise that the costs would be recouped
very quickly.

Instead you choose to defend "one that suits your personal tastes".

Frankly why you give a hoot about the sizes of our notes is
beyond my grasp. Do you belong to some secret society that identifies its
members by passing US notes or something? Maybe you traffic kangaroo parts
or something? Why so interested? I hate to even mention to you that we
have a strange combination of metric and fractional denominations and that
our 10¢ coin is smaller that our 1¢ and 5¢ coins. That's okay, though,
because the small dollar coins make up for it.

So I assume that you see the benefit of having different size coins for
different denominations. Just curious as to your blind spot on your notes.

It was done for a practical reason to conserve cotton
supplies for the effort to bail out the Commonwealth in WWI. Prior to
that, the notes were larger, but still of a standard size. The savings of
space, materiel, and labor was most certainly a real boon to the economy in
the for of increased productivity.


As would a change to polymer notes as there would be less maintenance
required on all not handling machinery as polymer doesn't shed itself or
pick up dirt anywhere near as much as 'paper' notes do. The notes last
many times longer therefore the costs of production are greatly reduced
and as a consequence the changeover costs for government would be
recouped reasonably quickly.


Blah, Blah, Blah. Again with the plastic notes. I don't care about
plastic versus. paper.

Hey you were the one who suggested "Technology can solve all
types of problems is you're willing to invest a little effort in finding
an efficient solution rather than one that suits your personal tastes."

I am offering polymer as a more efficient and technologically advanced
solution for you.

But it is clear your personal tasstes are what matters.


If it is cost to business that you have problems with you could do what
the Aussie government did when they changed to decimal currency and
compensate business for the cost of upgrading machines and equipment.

Out of MY pocket? Since it's so important to you, why don't you convince
the Aussie government to pay for our machine upgrades out of YOUR tax
dollars.

Considering the overall effect would be less dollars out of your pocket
you are taking a very short term view of the issue.

That change was in 1966. I imagine that there were relatively few vending
machines then and there versus here and now.

Vending machines, vending machines, blah, blah, blah.

In 1966, in Australia, every machine that dealt with money had to be
changed. With the change suggested all the cash registers and adding
machines would be able to be retained. The money counting machines
could be retained, and unless the US vending machine manufacturers only
make machines for the US market (which would be foolhardy) then a large
number of machines would need little or no modification.

Besides, comparing the
complete changeover of a currency system to a change of format is not a
reasonable argument. I suspect that the Aussie government was persuaded by
factors other than your style preferences.

Not really.

Yep the costs in the States would be higher than those in Australia, but
then the taxpayer base is proportionaly higher as well.

Having the taxpayer base is not a reasonable argument for spending the
bucks if they need not be spent.

Even if the benefit to the taxpayer in the long term is less cost?

The benefits of change in the US would be proportionally higher than
they were in Australia.

It will begin to mater less and less though as the Euro supplants the
$US as the 'international' currency.

Colin Kynoch

"Byron L. Reed" wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 01:15:29 GMT, Colin Kynoch
wrote:



Byron L. Reed wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:10:49 GMT, Colin Kynoch
wrote:


What, you've never heard a talking cash machine? or seen a transaction
receipt output in braile? These technologies exist and are easily
adaptable to a cash card system and would be a wonderful addition to the
marketplace.



And would be of a simialr cost if not more to implement than the changes
you considered so onerous in your previous post.

Similar cost? Based upon what evidence? Cash register systems are
routinely replaced in the US as new technologies emerge to reduce revenue
loss at checkout. This is a bottom line cost at major retailers that is
budgeted for, and the marginal cost of implementing these improvements
would be practically zero as opposed to your solution which would require
the replacement of perfectly serviceable durable equipment.


Such as?


The much more likely event of vendor dishonesty is entering the incorrect
price in the first place, not making change. Technology can solve all
types of problems is you're willing to invest a little effort in finding an
efficient solution rather than one that suits your personal tastes.

And polymer notes are many times more efficient than paper ones.

That isn't the question, bonehead! The question is whether differing sizes
are more efficient. As I've said before, a plastic note would be great IMO
as long as we can still use existing infrastructure. Why do you constantly
say I'm against plastic notes? I'm not. I like them.


When you start calling people names it's a sign that you are losing the
argument, better luck next time. Billy



You have me confused with somebody else. I never said anywhere that I have
a problem with plastic notes or that they are inefficient. All I said was
that the notes being paper had nothing to do with the fact that a couple of
idiots accepted color photocopies without checking the security devices.
This same problem would exist with a changeover to plastic notes too, if
the same idiots failed to check the security devices.


Is this an admission that Americans aren't as bright as Australians?

Is this a suggestion that Australians aren't as dumb as Americans? You've
proven that's not the case. They are at least as dumb as Americans.



I encourage the change to plastic notes if they can be economically
produced to work with existent infrastructure.


Not only could they be economically produced to work with current
infreastructure they would actually cost less (in both production and
use) than 'paper' notes.


My only problem was with your idea that different denominations of notes
must be different sizes.


Just out of curiosity would you like all denominations of coins to be
the same size, the same weight, the same colour?


As with the bills, I want them to be the same size they already are.


If not why your notes?

I wan't their size to be what is already is, too.



Colin Kynoch

BLReed

To email me click he http://tinyurl.com/nd66
For collector coins and supplies at fair prices: http://tinyurl.com/pt9r
Cool things: http://www.byronreed.com/byrons_collections/default.htm
Talk bust coins: http://www.byronreed.com/phpBB2/index.php

note.boy spoke thusly...
You talk a lot of sense Colin but I fear you are wasting your time as
Americans seem to be very resistant to change no matter how beneficial
the change would be.

i.e. Dump the one cent coin and one dollar note, I rest my case. Billy

Have any country's citizens ever chosen to dump their dollar notes or
one cent coins or have they all been forced to by their governments?

I do choose to dump the one cent coin quite often either by putting it
in the give a penny/take a penny dish or by saying 'keep the pennies'
but not all the time do I choose to do that.

I won't do the same with dollar notes but I do sometimes choose to spend
dollar coins instead of bills.


--
Stujoe
Email: http://tinyurl.com/wu00
Grading Challenge, Coin News, Virtual Coin Museum and mo
http://www.CoinPeople.com